Oh I LIKE how this is flowing together rather than just being a simple list.
On 2017-12-28 08:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On the third day of Nomic, the Forum sent to me
Three votes FOR
two proposal changes
to a ruleset of perfect clarity.
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On the second da
If this makes the game more elegant, I think this would be a great
improvement. I just don't know if it would do that or not. It sounds
tedious, but if the gain is worth it, then I suggest a full piece-by-piece
analysis of the ruleset of how Agora, if made to be a player, would work. I
think it wou
We had the President, which was a sort of singleton semi-autonomous player.
The idea of using Agora in place of an arbitrary singleton entity is
relatively new, and not one that I really like to be honest.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 16:00 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I have a vague feeling that we did
Part of the advantage is that Agora is ill-defined. For instance, Agora can
own assets, but what type of entity owns the asset? It's a singleton, not
really an object a coherent class. This would still allow Agora to be a
special case (it has to be), but at least it would provide a framework for
ha
I have a vague feeling that we did something like that before, but can't
place the context - anyone else remember?
Alternative: invert the assumption, in the switches rule, define player
switches
to include Agora unless Agora is explicitly excepted?
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
My draft report follows.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid opti
It might have a lot of unintended consequences, because "player" and
"Agora" weren't thought to supposed to work together. But with ample
revisions, I'm sure it would work.
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rule X ("Zombies") states that
Rule X ("Zombies") states that "Master is a secured player switch with
possible values of any player, and Agora". This type of boilerplate
pops up all over the place throughout the ruleset. What if we instead
said that Agora was always a player, but only took actions if the
ruleset said that e did
We have https://agoranomic.org/ if that's what you're talking about.
-Aris
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 9:37 AM David Nicol wrote:
> it sounds like it would make sense to augment the mailing list with
> some kind of non-email virtual artifact, dynamic or static. Web pages
> work very will for such p
it sounds like it would make sense to augment the mailing list with
some kind of non-email virtual artifact, dynamic or static. Web pages
work very will for such purposes, FRC got its from sites.google.com
and it is at https://sites.google.com/site/fantasyrulescommittee/ ...
i'd like to offer some
Yes, but no one has flipped his master switch.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Dec 26, 2017, at 9:48 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> shouldn't quazie be a zombie?
>
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>> --
11 matches
Mail list logo
